Of course, we should decide now how open people are to the whole idea of bloodlines for sorcerers. The bloodlines of sorcerers have blossomed in other campaigns from merely dragon-blooded sorcerers to celestial and fiendish blooded sorcerers, genesai blooded sorcerers, fey blooded sorcerers, and more. Again, I don't really see this as a problem in Dragonlance, but it is perhaps a little too FR/Planescape in feel for many fans, and rightly so.
On top of this, sorcerers on Krynn don't need any exotic blood at all. Every krynnish mortal has the potential for sorcery, and every krynnish mortal with a decent charisma score can use it.
If we do a total ban on blooded sorcerers, we would have to end half-fiends, fiendish, celestial, and half-celestial monsters as well. Not really a huge sacrifice, given that these monsters have never played much of a role in Dragonlance in the past. If we do decide to allow blooded sorcerers, we have to make room for them.
So the question is, does dragonlance have room for blooded sorcerers, or should we assume it is merely chaotic magic? How do we reconcile this with monsters and magical beasts that use sorcerery innately?
For myself, I find a lot more value in applying the half-blooded templates to non-human creatures. I prefer to leave the mortal races alone, in other words, unless absolutely necessary, and I'd never open up half-outsiders or planetouched to PCs.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
It more or less comes down to what you said about the potential for using sorcery and mysticism being inherent in the current nature of that magic, as it were.
Indeed, the nature of sorcery as something you can study makes introducing the concept of bloodlines a very messy thing. The simple fact that if sorcery is an innate talent, it is an innate talent for accessing something outside of yourself, and is something that every mortal on Krynn posesses. Plus, it just doesn't jive well with Krynn on other levels. I like Genesai, but I don't see them walking down the streets of Palanthas.
On the other hand, we do have the outer planes, the inner planes and even the astral, ethereal and shadow planes. Again, ultimately we'd have to decide whether or not we include these creatures. If you allow one outer-planer creature to have children, then ultimately the rest have to as well if you want to be consistent.
With Fey and Dragons it is a little more complex. Now, we know that dragons are older than the three mortal races (ogres, humans and elves) and are formed from elemental energy, the bones of the world. Now, we've decided that humans and dragons cannot have children, even with the polymorph spell.
However, we also have sivak draconians (who assume human shape naturally) and dragonspawn, so if we decide that these can breed with PC races then dragon-blooded sorcerers are back into the game. Now I'm rather attached to sivakith, but since they are just illusionist sorcerers I could just as easily do without the silver hair. Heck, I could even make them red-robed wizards.
The dragonspawn are a far more difficult matter, since they effectively take the role of half-dragons in the dragonlance setting. So if they can breed with the humans they used to be, then the PHB sorcerer is now firmly ensorceled. If we do this, we might as well not make such a fuss about humans and dragons having children.
The Fey are ambiguous, because they aren't dealt with specifically in the timeline. There are two obvious places they can arise of course. One is at the creation of the world itself, which would mean that they are wild and chaotic "side effects" if you will of the world itself. Soulless and not entirely real, but reflect the magical nature of the world itself.
A far more likely entry point for the fey however, is the release of the greygem. After all, Lunitari schemed with her brothers to bring magic to the world using the thing. Hardly something that seems reasonable if there was already enough ambient magic that the innately magical fey are there. Besides, the description of the greygem transforming animals, flora and fauna seems to describe the fey pretty well.
Now of course, there is one little snag to all this. How do we explain the fact that some greygem races can use sorcery, but others cannot? Do we assume that kender could be sorcerers before the release of magic? How about theiwar dwarves or minotaurs? Why the Fey and not them? After all, minotaurs seem to be transformed animals themselves.
We've also got at least one half-fey on the books, a Bram Di Thon, who obviously inherited his magical abilities.
Of course, we could go the other route, and assume that a special bloodline is required to be a wizard and a sorcerer both. A blue-skinned wizard wouldn't seem so out of place. After all, we had a gold-skinned one.
For myself, I find a lot more value in applying the half-blooded templates to non-human creatures. I prefer to leave the mortal races alone, in other words, unless absolutely necessary, and I'd never open up half-outsiders or planetouched to PCs.
Well, it works well in some cases. For example, I don't assume we would really be all that upset about ogre magi or theiwar savants using wild sorcery.
Kender, Minotaurs, Gnomes and any other race you want to lump in as a greygem creation though... it is a little trickier.
Do bloodlines belong in Dragonlance?
I think that depends upon one’s perspective. As a game designer, I probably would be leery of such a venture, as it doesn’t fit well with the way magic is set up in DL. As a dungeon master, I would probably allow it, if it fit the themes of my campaign and the player can provide an interesting background. As a player, I’d go for it if the DM would allow. Sounds like fun!
Originally posted by The White Sorcerer
In Krynn, the talent for sorcery, both High and primal, is inherited. It has nothing to do with draconic or fey or celestial or fiendish bloodlines, tho. It's just something that runs in the family.
You have to think deeper than that. The next question, obviously, is why does it run in some families, and not in others? What would happen if you were descended from a draconic, or fey, or celestial, or fiendish creature?
Originally posted by ferratus
The next question, obviously, is why does it run in some families, and not in others?
Dunno about primal sorcery, really. I'm not actually sure if it's inherited or not. But here's my theory on High Sorcery.
You know how some mortals were taught the use of High Sorcery by the moon gods, right? Magi are most likely descended from those mortals.
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
The idea that a sorcerer gains magic through his bloodline is but one possible explanation for the source of magic for a sorcerer. I think the problem that many fans have is that they don’t see this, and think that bloodlines are the only source for a sorcerer’s magic. As is evident with the standard DL sorcerer, this is not true.
I'm not saying it is the only explanation, but having it as a possible explanation must be taken into account when we design the sorcerers and their cabals.
Do bloodlines belong in Dragonlance?
I think that depends upon one’s perspective. As a game designer, I probably would be leery of such a venture, as it doesn’t fit well with the way magic is set up in DL.
Yeah, I'm a big fan of bloodlines and exotic ancestry because it really helps to define the character. However, I'm becoming less and less enamored of it when I consider the ultimate consequences of it, because it involves an amount of extra-planar interference that I don't really want in dragonlance. I know demons and elementals are summoned to Krynn. The question is, should they be allowed to have a union? Certainly half-demons wouldn't be out of place, but half-elementals seemingly are.
One could perhaps still allow it, but limit the numbers of such creatures by proclaiming that extra-planar creatures don't have souls and thus rob their half-human progeny of free will. That would make for an interesting clerical order of Gilean that specializes in killing half-extraplanar creatures.
Originally posted by ferratus
Yeah, I'm a big fan of bloodlines and exotic ancestry because it really helps to define the character.
Oh, I agree. I think there's a lot one can do with this, role-playing wise. What if you meet your ancestor that gave you the bloodline to begin with? Is he friend or foe? How do you as a person view the world when your ancestor is a dragon or extra-planar? Etc. etc.
This is something that I tend to think would work best for the Forgotten Realms.
If I were to allow bloodlines for Dragonlance, I would probably insist that the character's bloodline be draconic, so as to fit the setting better.
Chris Coyle has stated that love between a dragon and mortal tends to bring tragedy, so they usually don't end up with any sort of union. However, I would say that you can still have tragedy involved in having a character with a bloodline.
If one with a bloodline is allowed, you have to watch your time period. Age of Mortals, no problem. You access magic as do dragons, and nobody is the wiser. Prior to the Age of Mortals...well, you'd be an odd duck. ;)
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
The idea that a sorcerer gains magic through his bloodline is but one possible explanation for the source of magic for a sorcerer. I think the problem that many fans have is that they don’t see this, and think that bloodlines are the only source for a sorcerer’s magic. As is evident with the standard DL sorcerer, this is not true.
Yeah...well, that's probably because alot of people don't look past W&H stories...which focus on the Majere family...who happen to all be magic useres.
I think it can be hereditary...but I definately think it is something that can be learned, as well, by someone with no magical past at all.
And let's not forget an important point of sorcery and mysticism...it the 5th Age it became very accessable to just about anyone who dedicated the time to persuing study in it. That was the major problem during the Last Conclave...how can you monitor the use of something so widely accessable...and was ultimately the reason (I think) for Palin disbanding the Conclave.
To me...that definately says that magic can't only be hereditary.
Originally posted by Brimstone
Yeah...well, that's probably because alot of people don't look past W&H stories...which focus on the Majere family...who happen to all be magic useres.
I was thinking more of D&D players in this case.
Originally posted by Brimstone
And let's not forget an important point of sorcery and mysticism...it the 5th Age it became very accessable to just about anyone who dedicated the time to persuing study in it. That was the major problem during the Last Conclave...how can you monitor the use of something so widely accessable...and was ultimately the reason (I think) for Palin disbanding the Conclave.
To me...that definately says that magic can't only be hereditary.
Yeah, trust me, nobody is saying that. The problem is what happens when it is hereditary? Which monsters do we want starting the bloodline? How does it all fit together with magic as a wizardly art? Think of Dragonlance before there was a 5th Age or sorcery. How would a Wizard of High Sorcery be both a student mage or a half-fey?
See myself, I don't think the fey have the innate ability to cast spells either, just magical traditions of their own. That means that a satyr who grows up in a human village will never know how to play the pipes, a half-demon who never sees his demonic ancestor or studies magic will never cast that magic he is supposed to have innately (according to his template).
That of course, leads to the simple problem of what happens when a band of satyrs raise a human child. Boom badda bing, you have a sorcerer (of a sort) a no-no for previous ages. But hey, at least you don't have to cut off all your half-x creature templates.
Then of course there are the other questions. If fey are greygem races and they can cast magic that way, then what about other greygem races? Can they cast wild sorcery too?
Hmm... perhaps we can exploit a loophole. Let's say that the fey are able to do their magical mojo because they are attracted to pools or ley lines of wild magic. After all, dryads have their oak trees, nymphs have their rivers, etc. etc. We could even make a "sundered" template for spellcasting fey creatures, like the desolation dryads that Douglas Niles came up with. A lot less magical, but a lot more feral and miserable.
Of course, given that wild magic is drowning Krynn like the Blood Sea drowned Istar after the cataclysm, it wouldn't be something we really need to worry about anymore. For prior age sourcebooks though, one could consider this as an option. There could even be a source of wild magic deep within Theibardin.
Anyway, on a final note, people really have to start considering these little details, or they'll keep digging themselves in deeper. I know people are thinking about this, but they are trying to ignore the problems in order to have the 4th Age or 5th Age "just so" and ignore any problems that arise from the clashing rules and setting information. Sorry, I just think that's sloppy.
Wild Magic should be assessable to the common folk and run deep hereditarily in families that have been touch by some mystic force (fey, draconic, planar, etc.). I don’t see why it just has to be one or the other. For that matter that’s how I introduced sorcerers into my campaign when D&D 3.0 first came out. Since this was before the Chaos War I decided sorcerers would wield Wild Magic, would be rare as hell, and would have to have some draconic or fey blood to awaken within them primal magic. They would also have to be Renegades. Of course, since the release of DL Campaign I've expanded on this, but I’ve stuck with my decision that “blooded” individuals belong in Krynn.